Utilizing Imaging Analysis to Determine the Internal Structure Characteristics of Asphalt Mixtures for Permeability and Moisture Damage Performance
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript “Utilizing imaging analysis to determine the internal structure characteristics of asphalt mixtures for permeability and moisture damage performance” This article proposes to investigate air void-controlled asphalt mixtures using various material properties by a laboratory. The inspection of the number of aggregate contacts, and total aggregate contact length were obtain using the software IPAS2. It was evaluated the correlation of water permeability with other factors.
The work done is important from academical and industrial point of view. The methodology is well designed and the results are interesting. However, the writing of some topics has to be improved.
I have some questions / suggestions / changes to propose, not necessarily in this order: 1-This is an article based on digital image analysis strategies. The authors should present/discuss a little more the techniques and image processing strategies developed by other authors in the state of the art. For example, which strategies, digital processing filters, different software... used by other authors. 2- Topic 2.3 is not well described. The following were not specified: the number of images used, how the samples were cut (were the anisotropy of the material taken into account?). Were the images obtained by microscopy? Figure 3 is not explanatory. Does not show processing steps. The image is also not scaled. Finally, a few sentences should be added to explain the IPAS2 software. Is it public domain software? What is the programming language? Did the autoes use existing plug-ins? 3- Missing a reference: Roohi et.al. (2012)
Author Response
Please find attached responses and revised manuscript.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
1. The first two paragraphs need citation.
2. It seems that the first paragraph is redundant. The moisture damage is important itself. You don’t need to speak about climate change.
3. The references are too old.
4. What is the novelty of this work? The reduction of TSR parameter with the increase in permeability is obvious. If you want to develop a model, your data is too little for developing a model.
5. I think this work should be improved to be considered.
Author Response
Please find attached responses and revised manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript entitled “Utilizing imaging analysis to determine the internal structure characteristics of asphalt mixtures for permeability and moisture damage performance” has been reviewed. The manuscript was not well prepared. Detailed comments are as follows:
1. What is the difference between AC60/70 and AC60/70+Carbon Black (CB)? It is known that CB is another filler, like other fillers used in the paper. This should be explained in the Introduction.
2. Many typo errors exist in the manuscript. Pay attention to the superscript of numbers, such as cm2m, cm3 and 10-5, especially in Figures. Please double check the whole manuscript.
3. In abstract, the full name of TSR (traffic-induced strain rate) is wrong.
4. The abbreviation of Image Processing and Analysis System should be IPAS, not IPAS2.
5. The abbreviations, such as TSR and SBS, should be name where they first mention in the abstract and the main text.
6. The abbreviations, such as IPAS and TSR, should be named only once in the whole main text.
7. In 2. Materials and Methods, detailed information on the three mixes, such as CB and SBS contents and asphalt ratio, should be added.
8. AC6070 or AC60-70 should be AC60/70. In addition, carbon black should be abbreviated as CB.
9. In Fig. 1, unit should be in brackets. In addition, ticks on the x-axis are missing.
10. Subtitles in 2.2 and 2.3 should not all in the capitalization of first letters.
11. 3. Results should be Results and Discussion.
12. In Figs. 4 and 5, CB5 should be AC60/70+CB. K should be k.
13. In Fig. 6, the unit of TSR (%) is missing. AC60-70+additive A should be AC60/70+CB.
14. In Fig. 7, TSR (%) is missing. AC60-70+additive B should be AC60/70+SBS.
15. In Fig. 8, the unit of TSR (%) is missing.
16. In Table 7, phrases should not all in the capitalization of first letters.
17. 4. Summary of Findings should be removed.
18. References should be revised as per the guide for author of Coatings. Please unify the abbreviations of journal names and the capitalization of first letters in paper titles. Pay attention to the pages or articles numbers of papers.
Author Response
Please find attached responses and revised manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper is improved. The following suggestions are recommended.
1. The introduction part still needs to be improved. Please provide some literature about the effect of the permeability on the moisture damage and the applicability of the image processing to study moisture damage.
Ithe models are not statistically significant because the data are too low. At least provide a model with all data in one graph.
Author Response
Please see the attached revised manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript has been well revised. It can be accepted if the following comments are considered:
1. In figures, 10-5 should be 10-5.
2. References should be further revised. In Refs. (1-2), volume and pages are missing. In some references, paper titles are still in the form of the capitalization of first letters.
Author Response
Please see the attached revised manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
